Talk:RKS Design

This article was nominated for deletion on July 18, 2017. The result of the discussion was delete.

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
	This article was accepted from this draft on 28 December 2021 by reviewer Timtrent (talk · contribs).

Industrial design

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Industrial design, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Industrial design on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Industrial designWikipedia:WikiProject Industrial designTemplate:WikiProject Industrial designIndustrial design articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Query[edit]

Dear DGG, overall content of this draft is like a corporate brochure (full of pointers). Anyhow, it is bound to be remained in draftspace as long as the text is not improved. But, when it comes to the sources -> LA Times, CNN Money, and HBS Case study: do they collectively satisfy WP:THREE? If not, then what else should be considered for reviewing a draft like this one? -Hatchens (talk) 05:47, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hatchens, I have not sen the LAtimes article, but in the Fortune onethe content about the company seems to be what the relevant executives say. We need a discussion of whether being an HBS case study shows notability. I probably should have used both tags.

And this raises the perennial question of whether we should rewrite articles like this that have been submitted by obvious coi editors, probably paid editors. In effect, when we rewrite them, we're doing the work of the paid editor, or what they would have done if they had known how to write an article. My own tolerance for rewriting such material has greatly decreased. My current rule is that I will only consider fixing if the absence of an article would lead to an important gap in coverage, and I will only rewrite extensively if all three hold true: a/ the absence of the article would leave a really major disgraceful gap (which could also be reworded as its a subject that anyone would expect to find in an encyclopedia), b/ I am interested enough in the subject; c/ the rewriting isn't too difficult.

But the way we work, anyone can choose to do whatever they like, even if another editor might think it not worth the trouble, or even counter-productive. DGG ( talk ) 06:12, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, correct. Rewriting such articles is out of the question. I tried to be a part of the Wikipedia inclusionist group but eventually, I gave up. During a WP:NCORP discussion on Indigo Paints (You can follow the discussion over here Talk:Indigo_Paints). One of the editors referred to WP:LISTED's analyst reports to establish the notability. Eventually, I agreed with the lead editors and reviewed the article. Now, what if, a company is not listed like RKS Design or Simplilearn, then how to avoid substandard reviewing? Simplilearn's reviewing from my side seems to be a poor one (based on the reasoning provided by you and others... which I'm accepting) and I don't want to repeat this. Somewhere and somehow, my understanding of rules are overlapping with each other. - Hatchens (talk) 13:15, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hatchens, It's true that there's a confusing bunch of inconsistent rules, but the way to sort them out is to separate the basic fundamental principles from the policies, and the policies from the guidelines. The true relevant basic principle here, applicable at all times to all articles, is the pair of WP:NPOV and WP:V. The policies are meant to explain them, and the guidelines to give detail. But what counts are the fundamentals. Anyone with enough experience can find guidelines they can interpret to support almost any opinion at AfD (or elsewhere)., but it is much less ambiguous if this is done without compromising or distorting the principles. Any valid argument must be based on them. DGG ( talk ) 21:04, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, the best way to learn is to document by keeping WP:NPOV and WP:V in the center. That's why I'm developing a notability assessment chart at my sandbox - User:Hatchens/sandbox#Notability Assessment Chart - a blank slate approach is the only way. As you have suggested... I will try to distinguish; basic fundamentals from the policies and policies from the guidelines. - Hatchens (talk) 03:33, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hatchens . the key step is to not just take a look at the refernece list, but to to actually read the references themselves, Even when it sem clear I try to look at at least one reference. It's been the case for years that most editors do not do this in writing articles, but put in whatever seems to suit. . I learned how to to do this from Cunard; he and I Ioften don't evaluate the sources the same, bit at least we can discuss on the basis of the actual sources. (It also picks up a considerable amout of copyvio that theautomated methods seem to miss). I personally prefer not to reduce it to a table, because I find that manner of presentation tends to oversimplify, but there's no reason for everyone to do it the same way. DGG ( talk ) 09:17, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Acceptance at AFC[edit]

In my view this was borderline to accept. Rather than allowing it to languish and eventually fall foul of G13 I chose to accept it and allow the community to reach a conclusion. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 19:44, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]